news you won't find in the mainstream media

From now on, whenever you hear the term "the global economy" you should immediately equate it with the destruction of the U.S. middle class. Over the past several decades, the American economy has been slowly but surely merged into the emerging one world economic system. Unfortunately for the middle class, much of the rest of the world does not have the same minimum wage laws and worker protections that we do. Therefore, the massive global corporations that now dominate our economy are able to pay workers in other countries slave labor wages and import the products that they make into the United States to compete with products made by "expensive" American workers. This has resulted in a mass exodus of manufacturing facilities and jobs from the United States.

But without good, high paying jobs the U.S. middle class cannot continue to be the U.S middle class. The only thing that the vast majority of Americans have to offer in the economic marketplace is their labor. Sadly, that labor has now been dramatically devalued. American workers now must directly compete for jobs with millions upon millions of workers on the other side of the world that toil away for 15 hours a day at slave labor wages. This is causing jobs to leave the United States at an almost unbelievable rate, and it is putting tremendous downward pressure on the wages of millions of jobs that are still in the United States.

So when you hear terms such as "globalization" and "the global economy", it is important to keep in mind that those are code words for the emerging one world economic system that is systematically wiping out the U.S. middle class.

A one world labor pool means that the standard of living for the U.S. middle class will continue falling toward the standard of living in the third world.

The connection between this latest round of uprisings and the prior protests throughout Europe is one the mainstream media is not making. We are witnessing a decentralized global rebellion against Neo-Liberal economic imperialism. While each national uprising has its own internal characteristics, each one, at its core, is about the rising costs of living and lack of financial opportunity and security. Throughout the world the situation is the same: increasing levels of unemployment and poverty, as price inflation on food and basic necessities is soaring.

Whether national populations realize it or not, these uprisings are against systemic global economic policies that are strategically designed to exploit the working class, reduce living standards, increase personal debt and create severe inequalities of wealth. These global uprising, which have only just begun, are the first wave of the inevitable reaction to the implementation of a centralized worldwide Neo-Feudal economic order.

The global banking cartel, centered at the IMF, World Bank and Federal Reserve, have paid off politicians and dictators the world over — from Washington to Greece to Egypt. In country after country, they have looted national economies at the expense of local populations, consolidating wealth in unprecedented fashion – the top economic one-tenth of one percent is currently holding over $40 trillion in investible wealth, not counting an equally significant amount of wealth hidden in offshore accounts.

IMF imperial operations designed to extract wealth and suppress populations have been ongoing for decades. As anyone researching economic imperialism will know, a centrally planned Neo-Liberal aristocracy controls the global economy.

At the same time, the Pentagon developed a Total Information Awareness program with "detailed electronic dossiers" on millions of unsuspecting Americans. Public outrage got Congress to ban it, but the NSA, CIA and FBI continued it, monitoring Americans electronically, including private email and phone communications as well as access to financial, medical and other personal information.

In 2004, the FBI established an Investigative Data Warehouse "centralized (counterterrorism) repository," and in two years amassed 659 million individual records, now perhaps double that amount. It includes social security data, drivers' licenses, financial records, and virtually any information considered important to monitor - potentially making everyone's private life an open book to know about and abuse, including by warrantless wiretaps and other lawless methods.

Since taking office, Obama advanced the Bush agenda, endangering Americans more than ever under surveillance. For example, the FBI's "Terrorist Watchlist" adds 1,600 names daily to hundreds of thousands already included. A new Lackland Air Base cyber-command is charged with targeting enemy computers and repelling hostile cyber-attacks against US networks. Official denials notwithstanding, no one escapes surveillance.

Oil wealth, politics and foreign interference by Anglosphere intelligence operations have been stirring the unstable caldron of the Middle East since before World War One and it still goes on today.

Will Islamic extremism flourish and ultimately win in the region due to previous and current Anglo-American actions?

Could the power of the internet, Facebook and other social media triumph over power-hungry dictators and foreign empires resulting in some type of democratic representative government in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere?

Will the foreign and domestic elites work together and just change puppet leaders instead of losing government power and authority to the people as is usually the case in the area?

Or will the Treasury debt, dollar and oil risks force Washington to invade and secure Saudi Arabia to "save America’s best friend in the region" as the propaganda will claim? We all know the Middle East war which would develop should the United States occupy Saudi Arabia regardless of neutrality regarding Mecca and Medina. Could this be the ultimate psyops plan of desperate elites as reported in The Daily Bell?

The very notion that it is somehow “isolationist” to not endlessly support dictators and terrorists throughout the Middle East with financial, political and even military aid is to say that virtually every other nation on earth is also “isolationist.” It also ignores the fact that America is not a normal nation, or at least hasn’t been for a long time. In fact, in terms of its scope alone, US foreign policy is arguably the most abnormal in history. Not even the empires of Rome and Great Britain assumed that virtually any conflict around the globe necessarily affected the interests of Romans or Brits. The second edition of the “Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy” (2001) described this new, almost perverse concept of America’s “national interest” as the definition was being expanded even during the Vietnam era

In his speech to the union rally in front of the capitol, Capuano essentially declared that he is willing to cheapen the blood and lives of union members as a means of advancing his own political ambitions. For him and others of his ilk, human life is meaningless and carries no intrinsic value. It is a cheap commodity which exists only to serve him and his desire for greater political power. For him, blood is cheap — whether it is the blood of working men and women or that of the unborn. An ardent supporter of abortion-on-demand, he has supported an abortion funding amendment, while opposing legislation that would recognize fetal pain.

Like so many pro-abortionists, while Capuano is willing to sacrifice human life for his own gain, and supports the slaughter of the unborn in the womb, he is at the same time an animal rights advocate. He shows more respect for horses than he does unborn babies, as he has consistently supported measures such as the Horse Slaughter Prohibition Act, while opposing restrictions on abortion such as the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.

Union protesters in Wisconsin and their comrades across the country have preemptively followed Capuano’s advice. Just as their union forefathers were willing to bomb Haymarket Square in Chicago in 1886, violence has inevitably found its way into what is being dubbed the “Hemlock Revolution.” On Wednesday, as members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA) in Washington, D.C. protested outside the offices of the grassroots conservative group Freedom Works, a male CWA organizer violently struck and injured Tabitha Hale, a Freedom Works employee on the scene.

The organizer's attack on Hale demonstrates his movement’s hatred for both life and property — the two characteristic elements of all major socialistic regimes to arise in the 20th century, whether totalitarian communist states, or so-called “social democracies,” in the latter of which more nuanced violations against natural rights occur as a matter of daily life.

The United States government cannot get enough of war. With Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s regime falling to a rebelling population, CNN reports that a Pentagon spokesman said that the U.S. is looking at all options from the military side.

Allegedly, the Pentagon, which is responsible for one million dead Iraqis and an unknown number of dead Afghans and Pakistanis, is concerned about the deaths of 1,000 Libyan protesters.

While the Pentagon tries to figure out how to get involved in the Libyan revolt, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific is developing new battle plans to take on China in her home territory. Four-star Admiral Robert Willard thinks the U.S. should be able to whip China in its own coastal waters.

War makes money for the politically connected. While the flag-waving population remains proud of the service of their sons, brothers, husbands, fathers, cousins, wives, mothers and daughters, the smart boys who got the fireworks started are rolling in the mega-millions.

As General Smedley Butler told the jingoistic American population, to no avail, "war is a racket." As long as the American population remains proud that their relatives serve as cannon fodder for the military/security complex, war will remain a racket.

The corporate media has repeatedly told the American people that we went to war with Iraq to fight terrorism, while some in the alternative community believe it was over Iraq’s extensive oil fields.

This could not have been further from the truth.

Multiple U.S. assets secured deals that would have brought America billions of dollars without killing anyone.

This Excerpt from Susan’s book, Extreme Prejudice, The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq, and the documentation that she has provided proves without a doubt that the United States went to war with Iraq not for oil or to stop terrorism, but to nation build and essentially create a perpetual state of war.

The League of the South is led by cultural conservatives, many of whom are Southern Baptists. Not surprisingly, its "Declaration" also denounces "the corrupt and sterile national culture" which is "violent and profane, coarse and rude, cynical and deviant" and "repugnant to . . . every people with authentic Christian sensibilities." The League announces its hatred of "profanity and obscenity in the arts and literature" and calls for a return to "our" cultural inheritance of "the permanent things that order and sustain life: faith, family, tradition, community, and private property; loyalty, courage, and honour." The League’s Declaration also expresses a certain hatred for "an overbearing government that acknowledges no limits to its power." Such declarations go a long way toward explaining the ultra-leftist SPLC’s hatred of this organization and anyone associated with it in any capacity.

On the League’s Web site is a "Statement to the Rest of the World" on "What the Traditional South Wants and Doesn’t Want." The listing of "What We Don’t Want" appears to be a good gauge of what exactly it is that the League of the South really hates. Their list of "What We Don’t Want" consists of:

Perpetual war for perpetual peace and "more Southern blood [shed] for the advancement of the American empire. To rule the world. To engage in unfair trade practices . . . through the establishment of protective tariffs. To extend "most favored nation" status to any country. To force "the Southern way" on any people anywhere. To continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq or to go to war with Iran. To go to war against any nation except in self defense. To continue outsourcing Southern jobs to other countries . . . To continue to live in a "godless, multicultural American Empire."

"Multiculturalism," keep in mind, is a synonym for "political correctness" and all of its absurdities and tyrannies.

Feisty Helen Thomas again skewered Israel, this time on a CNN interview. She stated that most of the “Jews” who violently drove out 800,000 Palestinians from Palestine in 1948 were actually not Jews at all but “Europeans” (ie. descendants of the central European nation of Khazaria converted to Judaism about 850 AD). (See, The Khazars: Do They Destroy God’s Plan for the Jews?) “They’re not Semites, I mean, most of them are from Europe.”

She also asserted that, with the end of World War II, persecution of Jews worldwide had ceased and there was no need for such “Europeans” to steal Palestine from those who had occupied it for millennia. “There hasn’t been persecution… since World War II. You don’t take other people’s land. They didn’t have to go anywhere really, because they weren’t being persecuted anymore… Under international law occupied land should not be annexed.”

Defending herself from the accusation that she is insensitive in criticizing Israel and Jewish control, Thomas replies: “Count how many Palestinians are in jail now, taken from their homes, a million refugees, is that sensitive?”

Thomas reiterated her claim that, short of having their career ruined by Jewish attack groups like ADL, there is no freedom of speech for public figures who criticize Israel. “We have organized lobbyists in favor of Israel…. You can’t open your mouth. I can call the president of the United States anything in the book, but if you say one thing about Israel…you’re off limits…. I have regrets that everyone misinterpreted it and distorted it, and you have the Ari Fleischer and the Abe Foxman distorting everything, so I certainly knew that and I should of kept my mouth shut, probably."

While millions in the world are celebrating the popular uprisings in North Africa, Europe is watching with skepticism and fear. The fall of the African dictators will deprive Europe of valuable allies in the fight against irregular migration. The political vacuum and the social and economic instability that follows will create a new wave of desperate migrants daring the high seas to reach the coats of Europe. This will deepen the immigration crisis Europe has been trying hard to manage in recent years. Europe is responding with an increased use of force. A new humanitarian crisis is looming.

Devastated by war and poverty, thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans have been leaving home on a torturous and long journey north every year. Arriving in Morocco, Tunisia, or Libya, they recuperate from the journey fatigue, pay human smugglers, and climb aboard flimsy boats heading to Italy or Spain. Many fall victim to high waves and deadly storms. The survivors join the army of asylum seekers, or undocumented workers in big cities across the continent.

Removing and returning the migrants to their places of origin or the last country they left before entering Europe has proven impractical. As a result, preventing the Africans from reaching Europe has become a policy priority in recent years. To block their arrival, European states have been signing bilateral agreements with North African dictators, recruiting them to guard the EU borders in return for financial assistance.

In a bilateral agreement with Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali, Italy pledged financial support in exchange for help in preventing African transit immigrants and Tunisians from leaving for Europe. Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali's fall ended the agreement. Border control collapsed in Tunisia and 5000 Tunisians arrived in the Italian port of Lampedusa. Although in much smaller numbers, Egyptians have been leaving their homes and heading to Italy. Egypt remains politically and economically unstable. The continuation of the situation will only increase the number of Egyptians opting for survival in Europe.

The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in "psychological operations" to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war, Rolling Stone has learned – and when an officer tried to stop the operation, he was railroaded by military investigators.

The Runaway General: The Rolling Stone Profile of Stanley McChrystal That Changed History

The orders came from the command of Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, a three-star general in charge of training Afghan troops – the linchpin of U.S. strategy in the war. Over a four-month period last year, a military cell devoted to what is known as "information operations" at Camp Eggers in Kabul was repeatedly pressured to target visiting senators and other VIPs who met with Caldwell. When the unit resisted the order, arguing that it violated U.S. laws prohibiting the use of propaganda against American citizens, it was subjected to a campaign of retaliation.

"My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave," says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. "I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line."

With the demonstrations in Wisconsin, the country is getting a sneak preview of what life will be like for everyone if the left prevails. The climate that the left has created in Berkeley will be the norm in Milwaukee and Toledo and all over the country should the left win.

Because the left are not just abusers; they are terrorists, with leaders who engage in or call for terror, including Bill Ayers and Frances Fox Piven.

This is why the Governor and the citizens of Wisconsin must hold strong, and not buckle under pressure. Because in some ways, the country is at a tipping point. As goes Wisconsin, goes the entire nation.

The leftists are more ruthless and rapacious than your wildest imagination. They do not simply want your money and your property.

They desire something much more essential: your ability to fight back; the innate belief that you and I and this country are worth fighting for.

They want to crush your self-respect and dignity, to steal the virtues that are hidden deep down in your soul. It's too late for Berkeley. But, Wisconsin, don't give it to them.

Of course, the foreign aid “investment” in foreign dictators around the world has often led American politicians and pontificators to cling to the dictators long after the people of their countries have any use for them. Such has been the case with the Obama-Biden administration and the Mubarak regime in Egypt. A week after massive Egyptian protests in Tahrir Square made worldwide headlines, Secretary of State Clinton and Vice President Biden told Americans they were sticking with the dictator. “I would not refer to him as a dictator,” Biden said on PBS’ NewsHour on January 27. Meanwhile, Clinton told David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press that “President Mubarak and his government have been an important partner to the United States” and that the government was exercising “restraint” in its dealings with the demonstrators, even as beatings, shootings, and murders mounted. But reality did eventually set in. On February 6, long after it became obvious that a transition of power from Mubarak was going to happen anyway, President Obama finally told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly about Mubarak, “What we’ve said is you’ve got to lead to a transition now.”

That’s not to say the Obama administration has allowed too much reality to enter the public debate. The Obama administration’s immediate plans include ramping up foreign aid giveaways. The State Department’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review calls for creation of a host of new job positions and agencies, including “creating an Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights” and a “Coordinator for Cyber Issues,” establishing “a Bureau of Policy, Planning, and Learning” and a “Bureau for Counterterrorism,” and appointing “a Global Food Security Coordinator” and “a new Bureau for Energy Resources.” The phrases “abolish” and “phase out” for other agencies or officers already tasked with similar foreign aid and foreign manipulation appear nowhere in the document.

Considering the bloody history of foreign aid, and the current prospects of some major political blow-back caused by U.S. government past backing of dictators with foreign aid money, Senator Rand Paul may have expressed only part of the problem with foreign aid. Americans are paying the monetary cost of foreign aid out of their wallets, but they are also paying another — higher — cost for the ill-will that our foreign aid has created for America abroad. Even if the federal government were enjoying an embarrassing budget surplus, as it did during much of the 19th century, Americans still couldn’t afford the cost of foreign aid.

A very encouraging development is that the Israel Lobby is increasingly on the defensive with the Republican base. Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul have proposed cutting the foreign budget. A letter from Ron Paul was headlined “Stop buying friends overseas, save $6 billion!”

These calls to restrict foreign aid are framed entirely within the context of a completely out of control federal budget. But that hasn’t stopped the David Horowitz from his usual over the top craziness, painting anyone who doesn’t do everything Israel wants as an anti-Semite: “Ron Paul is a Vicious Anti-Semite and Conservatives Need To Wash Their Hands of Him.”

The “Jew hating storm troopers” refers to hundreds of thugs plastered with swastikas who stormed Horowitz’s table at the CPAC conference and viciously beat up the presenters.

Oh wait. That’s how the scene played out in Horowitz’s diseased mind. In the real world, the people manning Horowitz’s table were confronted by a whole lot of young conservatives who have gotten the message that Israel is an apartheid state bent on ethnic cleansing and oppression of the Palestinians. They seem to be aware of the hypocrisy of Jewish activist organizations that preach multiculturalism for non-Jews and aggressive ethnonationalism for Jews.

And the really encouraging thing is that a great many young conservatives are turning away from neocon Israelocentrism as a paradigm for what it means to be conservative, and that’s all to the good.

Is it merely a coincidence that less than a week after Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi threatened Israel by calling on Palestinians to capitalize on the wave of popular uprisings in the Middle East by massing peacefully on the borders of the Zionist state, his own regime is teetering on the brink of extinction following massive anti-government riots in Benghazi and Tripoli?

It seems as though the new world order hierarchy has now got all its ducks in a row as part of a massive propaganda and destabilization assault aimed at Libya in an effort to hijack the revolution and steer its outcome to suit their interests, just as has unfolded in Egypt where a gaggle of NGO’s and globalist forces have swooped in to feed off the vacuum of power left by Hosni Mubarak’s ousting.

Gaddafi’s very public threat to Israel was undoubtedly one of the primary factors that sealed his fate and made him a target of the contrived color revolutions now sweeping the region.

“I believe we are seeing the destabilization of all the regimes in the area beginning with Tunisia moving to Egypt, but unfortunately I think the intended result of this is to see it take place in your country of Iran. I think that is the end result that they [Western countries] want to see take place is regime change in countries that are unfavorable to Israel and the US,” geopolitical analyst Mark Glenn tells Press TV.

You know the fat lady is about to sing when a dictator unleashes hell from above over his own unarmed, civilian compatriots, and bombs parts of his capital city. That's a bridge too far even by the unspeakable standards of Western-backed dictators in the Arab world.

You know the (ghastly) show may be over when Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, one of the most popular Sunni authorities in the world, not least because of his weekly show on al-Jazeera, issues a fatwa - "I am issuing a fatwa now to kill [Muammar] Gaddafi. To any soldier, to any man who can pull the trigger and kill this man to do so" - and then prays live, on al-Jazeera, for the end of the Libyan dictator ("O Lord save the Libyans from this pharaoh." When he finishes, the al-Jazeera anchor says "Amen").

It was not enough to deploy "black African" mercenaries in a shoot-to-kill rampage in Benghazi. Already on Sunday, Sheikh Faraj al-Zuway, leader of the crucial al-Zuwayya tribe in eastern Libya, had threatened to cut oil exports to the West within 24 hours unless what he called the "oppression of protesters" in Benghazi was stopped.

Akram Al-Warfalli, a leader of the al-Warfalla tribe, one of Libya's biggest, in the south of Tripoli, had told al-Jazeera Gaddafi is "no longer a brother, we tell you to leave the country". The 500,000-strong Berber, Tuaregs from the southern desert, are also against him. When you have four of your key tribes - the spine of your system - marching on Tripoli to get rid of you, you better watch out.

Bahrain is not Egypt. Bahrain is not Tunisia. And Bahrain is not Libya or Algeria or Yemen. True, the tens of thousands gathering again yesterday at the Pearl roundabout – most of them Shia but some of them Sunni Muslims – dressed themselves in Bahraini flags, just as the Cairo millions wore Egyptian flags in Tahrir Square.

But this miniature sultanist kingdom is not yet experiencing a revolution. The uprising of the country's 70 per cent – or is it 80 per cent? – Shia population is more a civil rights movement than a mass of republican rebels, but Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa had better meet their demands quickly if he doesn't want an insurrection.

Indeed, the calls for an end to the entire 200-year-old Khalifa family rule in Bahrain are growing way ahead of the original aims of this explosion of anger: an elected prime minister, a constitutional monarchy, an end to discrimination. The cries of disgust at the Khalifas are much louder, the slogans more incendiary; and the vast array of supposedly opposition personalities talking to the Crown Prince is far behind the mood of the crowds who were yesterday erecting makeshift homes – tented, fully carpeted, complete with tea stalls and portable lavatories – in the very centre of Manama. The royal family would like them to leave but they have no intention of doing so. Yesterday, thousands of employees of the huge Alba aluminium plant marched to the roundabout to remind King Hamad and the Crown Prince that a powerful industrial and trade union movement now lies behind this sea of largely Shia protesters.

What could possibly be the most important unreported news from the weekend comes out of China, where quietly Internet postings have circulated, calling for disgruntled Chinese to gather on Sunday in public places in 13 major cities to mark the "Jasmine Revolution" spreading through the Middle East. The postings, many of which appeared to have originated on overseas websites run by exiled Chinese political activists, called for protests in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou and 10 other major Chinese cities. And while there has been some speculation this latest "social network" protest is nothing more than performance art, the Chinese authorities sure are taking it seriously: "The calls have apparently led the Chinese government to censor postings containing the word "jasmine" in an attempt to quell any potential unrest. "We welcome... laid off workers and victims of forced evictions to participate in demonstrations, shout slogans and seek freedom, democracy and political reform to end 'one party rule'," one posting said." Just like surging prices (which however are either forcefully adjusted to not be reflected or eliminated entirely from the data stream) caused virtually all prior Chinese social revolts, will they succeed again? And more importantly, will China demonstrate to the US that the only way to prevent a 'twitter revolution' is to wrest control of the internet entirely? If so, how many days before Big Brother is actively scouring through every single 100Base TX for daily keywords of choice with HBGary patiently waiting in the corridors to unleash a destructive DDOS at a moment's notice?

Pakistani defense analyst and security consultant Zaid Hamid says that there is evidence that confirms the links between the detained US undercover operative, Raymond Davis, with “CIA espionage and sabotage” as well as the “US drone attacks” in Pakistan.

Recently, Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, stated a political maxim he feels is worthy of admitting. Cameron publically acknowledged that multiculturalism doesn’t work. The catalyst, as it is admitted, to his acknowledgment is the cultural and political problems caused by fundamentally-opposed persons and activists infiltrating Britain and changing European philosophy into Islamic philosophy. As the Prime Minister admits, a clash of fundamentals cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same environment. One or the other will naturally prevail; but before the victor wins, there will be a serious contest and fight between the fundamentals. This fight almost always comes in the form of laws, policies and constitutions—in other words, the way people are governed. So, as Britain and many of the European states are finding out, for a State to maintain its identity and freedom, it must maintain its sovereignty and independence against those who fundamentally challenge its cultural and societal unity of jurisprudence, interest and purpose.

For decades, the fundamentals in the States of America have similarly clashed and have resulted in a union held together by little more than fear: fear of federal government retribution, fear of economic suffering, fear of political instability and the like. Yet, regardless of the political tie, the societal and cultural ties erode ever more as the natural progression of societies reveals a clash of fundamentals. As a symptom of this phenomenon, the States seemingly have no control over the federal government supposedly designed for limited purposes for the benefit of all of the States because their concepts regarding self-government and the role of the federal government are fundamentally opposed to each other. Unfortunately, the larger societies get the more out of control the federal government becomes because of the increasing clash of the fundamentals.

This clash does not represent an intentional animosity one towards another, nor does it necessarily reveal a conspiracy on the part of any to subdue the other. More accurately put, it reflects the evolutionary shifts societies make to better protect, provide and secure their own borders and citizens as they deem best. States which ignore this duty to protect, provide and secure have already been defeated and have little to no chance of defeating a clash from within. This process is not only natural but also necessary. Of course, as societies change over the decades and centuries, there is simultaneously a competition within the State against those who would subject the State to “foreign” interests and others who would prefer the survival and defense of the interests beneficial for the people of that State. Thus, as is the case for Britain, the very survival and existence of the State rests with the ability of the citizens and government to successfully suppress movements that would strip it of its natural and traditional jurisprudence and culture.

Beginning in North Africa, now unfolding in the Middle East and Iran, and soon to spread to Eastern Europe and Asia, the globalist fueled color revolutions are attempting to profoundly transform entire regions of the planet in one sweeping move. It is an ambitious gambit, perhaps even one born of desperation, with the globalists' depravity and betrayal on full display to the world with no opportunity to turn back now.

To understand the globalists' reasoning behind such a bold move, it helps to understand their ultimate end game and the obstacles standing between them and their achieving it.

The End Game

The end game of course is a world spanning system of global governance. This is a system controlled by Anglo-American financiers and their network of global institutions ensuring the world's consolidated nations conform to a singular system they can then perpetually fleece. As megalomaniacal oligarchs, their singular obsession is the consolidation and preservation of their power. This will be achieved through a system of population control, industrial control, and monetary control, which together form the foundation of their Malthusian policies.

These policies are on full display in the UN's "Agenda 21," and by policy wonks like the current White House Science Adviser John Holdren in his book titled "Ecoscience."

Have you seen video of the teacher protests that are going on in Wisconsin? We haven't seen anything like this in America in quite some time. If you haven't seen video of the protests yet, some very good raw footage is posted below. On the one hand it is good to see Americans coming together and standing up for what they believe in, but on the other hand what these teachers are freaking out about shows just how much America has changed. These teachers are not protesting for liberty, freedom or to change the government. Rather, they are protesting because they want things to remain the same. They simply don't want anyone to mess with their pay. Well, the truth is that none of us ever wants to experience a pay cut. It is not a lot of fun. But sadly, states like Wisconsin are so broke that they have to find cuts somewhere. Someone is going to have to make a sacrifice. The teachers in Wisconsin just want to make sure that it is not them.

In the United States today, state and local governments are facing unprecedented budget crunches. Tax revenues are way down and expenses are way up. State and local government debt has reached at an all-time high of 22 percent of U.S. GDP, and many state and local governments are teetering on the brink of insolvency.

States like Wisconsin have to do something or else they will collapse financially. Wisconsin is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit (which for that state is huge), and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the Republicans in the legislature are attempting to make some tough cuts.

What we are witnessing right now in Wisconsin are just the "birth pains". The American people don't want to "tighten their belts". In fact, most Americans have absolutely no idea what "hard times" would even look like. When things go from bad to worse we are going to see temper tantrums in this country like we have never seen before.

In a highly competitive marketplace, it becomes difficult for unions to sell their labor with promises of higher quality… especially since unionized labor is notoriously difficult to work with, due to the productivity-limiting rules mentioned above, and the way union representatives insert themselves as a layer of bureaucracy between workers and management. Organized labor is a lot more expensive than hiring individual workers. They don’t cost five or ten percent more – they often cost two or three times as much to employ. It’s hard to convince employers to pay this much voluntarily.

This leaves the union with only one other method of preserving its collective bargaining power: it must limit the ability of non-union workers to compete with its members. That is why organized labor is so desperate to get the “Card Check” legislation Democrats promised them. It would remove secrecy from union votes, enabling the union to pressure independent workers into joining up. There is already a law known as the Davis-Bacon Act, passed in 1931, that prevents non-unionized operations from under-bidding union shops for government contracts. Union shops would almost never win competitive bids for public works projects otherwise.

Organized labor is heavily depending on political interference in the free market for success, because only political power can effectively shut down competition. Collective bargaining only works if the union has a functional monopoly on providing labor to the employers it negotiates with. Threats of a strike are only effective if employers cannot simply fire the striking workers and replace them.

Monopolies are extremely difficult to create without government intervention. Government power is even deployed to force people to join unions. For example, last year in Flint, Michigan, independent day care providers suddenly discovered that union dues were being subtracted from the state child-care subsidies they depend upon, and remitted to an organization created by AFSCME and the United Auto Workers.

Once it became clear that Egypt’s dictator Hosni Mubarak was on the way out, U.S. officials quickly shifted gears and took the side of the demonstrators, the people who had suffered for 30 years under the brutal Mubarak dictatorship. U.S. officials even offered their guidance for moving Egypt toward a democratic political system.

Of course, all this pro-democracy hoopla was designed to disguise the fact that the U.S. government has been the prime partner and enabler of this brutal dictatorship for the entire 30 years under which the Egyptian people have suffered. It has been the U.S. government that has been providing the $60 billion in U.S. taxpayer money to Mubarak and his henchmen in the Egyptian military and secret police. It has been the U.S. government that has been paying the salaries of Egypt’s jailors and torturers for the past three decades. It is the U.S. military that has been training the Egyptian military.

In fact, it’s actually worse than that. Believe it or not, U.S. officials actually cut a deal with Egypt’s torturers to torture people on behalf of the U.S. government. The deal called for the U.S. government to bring people into Egypt, where they would be tortured for information or confession, with the understanding that Mubarak would publicly deny that the prisoners would be tortured.

In that way, U.S. officials could proclaim, “We’re shocked that our prisoner has been tortured because they promised that they wouldn’t torture him.” Of course, it was all a sham, one that would enable U.S. officials to deceitfully express shock over the torture, acquire the information or confession with torture, and then secretly thank their Egyptian partners for employing their torture expertise on their behalf. The torture deal was a testament to the U.S. government’s partnerships with dictatorships.

Is Barack Obama trying to play a joke on all of us? The budget that the Obama administration has submitted for fiscal 2012 is so out of touch with reality that it may as well be a budget for "Narnia", "Fantasy Island", "Atlantis" or some other mythical land. You can view the hard numbers for Barack Obama's 2012 budget right here. Obama's budget assumes that the U.S. will experience economic growth of over 5 percent for most of the coming decade. That is so far-fetched that "optimistic" is not the right word for it. It also assumes that U.S. government income (primarily made up of taxes on all of us) will more than double over the next ten years. For 2011, the budget projects that the U.S. government will take in a total of 2.1 trillion dollars, and for 2021 the budget projects that the U.S. government will take in a total of 4.9 trillion dollars. For the Obama administration to assume that the federal government will be able to drain an extra 2.8 trillion dollars per year out of the American people by the year 2021 is ridicul0us beyond belief. In his new budget Barack Obama does propose some very, very modest spending cuts that he knows have no chance of getting through Congress. Barack Obama's budget for 2012 also does not even attempt to make any cuts to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. In essence, you can sum up Barack Obama's budget proposal for 2012 by saying that it is a complete and total joke. This budget is so delusional and so out of touch with reality that it is hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously.

The truth is that Barack Obama should be proposing spending cuts that are at least ten times as large if he was actually serious about addressing our budget woes.

In fact, under Obama's budget, U.S. government spending will soar from 3.8 trillion dollars this year to 5.6 trillion dollars in 2021.

In the end, if something is not done about all this debt it will destroy the entire U.S. financial system.

Leftist leaders pretend, with eye-popping cynicism, to be Christians while pulling in 90% of the atheist/agnostic vote. They pay lip service to something called “America” while working feverishly to change our America beyond all recognition. They pander to “the little guy” while striving to strip him of his money and his liberty--all in the good cause of saving the planet from Man-made Global Warming: which is caused, of course, by the same beloved little guy’s light bulbs and bedroom air conditioner, and never by any Democrat nabob’s private jet or zillion-dollar mansion.

Wherever it’s been tried for any length of time, left-wing public policy ends in self-destruction. Because they do the opposite of everything God describes in the Bible as righteous, sane, and good, the leftists’ house falls down. Even the Soviet Union only lasted 70 years in spite of propping itself up with secret police and gulags.

Instead of fleeing in terror from such policies, today’s CPAC seems to think conservatives can do the same kinds of things that leftists do, and get away with it by doing them “smarter.” Yes--smart folly is always so much better than stupid folly, isn’t it?

Today’s liberals are tomorrow’s secular conservatives. These are the conservatives who, twenty years from now, or sooner, will be defending “gay marriage.” If conservatives cannot or will not conserve the authority of Christian teaching--which all our country’s founders explicitly acknowledged--they will not be able to conserve anything at all.

Israeli arrogance and presumption of Jewish organizational, strategic and political superiority over “the Arabs”, has been severely deflated. The Israeli state, its experts, undercover operatives and Ivy League academics were blind to the unfolding realities, ignorant of the depth of disaffection and impotent to prevent the mass opposition to their most valued client. Israel’s publicists in the US, who scarcely resist the opportunity to promote the “brilliance” of Israel’s security forces, whether it’s assassinating an Arab leader in Lebanon or Dubai, or bombing a military facility in Syria, were temporarily speechless.

The fall of Mubarak and the possible emergence of an independent and democratic government would mean that Israel could lose its major ‘cop on the beat’. A democratic public will not cooperate with Israel in maintaining the blockade of Gaza – starving Palestinians to break their will to resist. Israel will not be able to count on a democratic government, to back its violent land seizures in the West Bank and its stooge Palestinian regime. Nor can the US count on a democratic Egypt to back its intrigues in Lebanon, its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its sanctions against Iran. Moreover, the Egyptian uprising has served as an example for popular movements against other US client dictatorships in Jordan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.For all these reasons,Washington backed the military takeover in order to shape a political transition according to its liking and imperial interests.

The weakening of the principle pillar of US imperial and Israeli colonial power in North Africa and the Middle East reveals the essential role of imperial collaborator regimes. The dictatorial character of these regimes is a direct result of the role they play in upholding imperial interests. And the major military aid packages which corrupt and enrich the ruling elites are the rewards for being willing collaborators of imperial and colonial states. Given the strategic importance of the Egyptian dictatorship, how do we explain the failure of the US and Israeli intelligence agencies to anticipate the uprisings?

Both the CIA and the Mossad worked closely with the Egyptian intelligence agencies and relied on them for their information, confiding in their self-serving reports that “everything was under control”: the opposition parties were weak, decimated by repression ad infiltration, their militants languishing in jail, or suffering fatal “heart attacks” because of harsh “interrogation techniques”. The elections were rigged to elect US and Israeli clients – no democratic surprises in the immediate or medium term horizon.

President Obama is following George Soro's advice ruling by decree if he can not get his way with the new congress. One of the issues is gun control. No anti gun bill will never make it out of committee with a Republican dominated House of Representatives. He can not outright call for ban on the people possessing firearms and tell people to turn in their guns. The Attorney General Eric Holder issued a Memorandum to the FBI directives to carry out mandates concerning gun control. These directives are designed to make it impossible for the average person to own a firearm because of the red tape and many fees gun owners will have to pay annually.If they can not afford the fee. They will have to turn in their firearms. If people comply with it.

Mark Koernke who is part of the Michigan Militia received this FBI memo from a source inside the agency. It is apparent that this Obama administration is working hard to find ways to disarm the American people. I do not think the American people will buy it this time around. We have seen what happens when the people are disarmed. You look at when the communist took over in China,Russia, and Cambodia. When the people were disarmed. These governments murdered people on a industrial scale. We have seen what happens with gun control in cities like Chicago,and New York. They are the most authoritarian cities were corruption flourishes and crime rampant were the outlaws have guns. The reason is the right to keep and bear arms among the law abiding is illegal.So they will never be able to stand up to the corrupt governments and the criminal elements that run the city. Gun control laws punish the law abiding. Not the law breakers.What are in these directives? Here is a few.

They are coming for our weapons we use to defend ourselves against criminals and a tyrannical government. What laws this sitting President can not get passed through congress. He is implementing through the Bureaucracies to carry it out by creating regulations. He is enforcing Cap and Trade through the EPA when there is no law passed. He will be trying to confiscate the guns through writing regulations and executive orders using the arm of the BATFE and the FBI to carry out the decree like the EPA is being used to illegal enforce carbon credits.

This is the time we need to be stubborn and say "no" to any lawless attempt to illegally disarm us. Firearm ownership in the hands of the people is what stands between freedom and hell on earth.We have the law of the land on our side.We use it or lose it. The second Amendment of the US Constitution says. "A well regulated Militia is necessary for the security of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." We either be a stubborn freeman or be a slave at the mercy of tyrants. The choice is ours.

Mr. Obama’s budget projects that 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 103.6 percent of GDP — the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached.

Furthermore, the government’s 2010 deficit reached $1.645 trillion, $230 billion more than that of 2009. To emphasize just how staggering these figures are, note that the deficit in 2007 was a "mere" $160 billion.

According to the Washington Times, government measures debt in a variety of ways:

Debt held by the public includes the money borrowed from Social Security’s trust fund. Actual debt held by the public will reach 72 percent of GDP in 2011 and will climb as the Social Security trust fund’s finances continue to deteriorate.

The uprising in Egypt and challenge to the Middle East’s autocratic rulers could have produced a sense of déjà vu for the late German-Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt. Notwithstanding her reputation as a progressive thinker, Arendt believed that the erosion in the power of Europe’s conservative ruling elites and the strong national states they controlled helped set the stage for rise of totalitarianism and the horrific wars that engulfed Europe in the first part of the 20th century.

As Arendt pointed out in her classic study The Origins of Totalitarianism, the inability of these ruling elites in France, Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Slavic states to retain their legitimacy in the face of waves of nationalist convulsions ignited by “the people”—the opening chapter being the uprisings of 1848—led to the collapse of the post-Napoleonic European order that had been negotiated in the Congress of Vienna. This created the conditions for the downfall of the Austro-Hungarian, German, and Russian empires and resulted in decades of tyranny and bloodshed. A direct line connects the “Spring of Nations” and the wars of the last century.

From that perspective, the protests in Egypt may not mark the beginning of a peaceful transition to liberal democracy along the lines of what happened in the former Soviet bloc in 1989. Instead, the insurgencies in the Middle East look more like the revolts of 1848, the start of a long and chaotic era that will not necessarily bring about political and economic progress. The narrative that romances the revolution could be replaced with a much more complex story, one with no happy ending.

Under this scenario, the U.S. as the current upholder of the global and regional status quo has become weaker, less confident, and more constrained in its ability to secure the foundations of the world order—including the shaky Pax Americana in the Middle East, where the U.S. might not be able to prevent the decline and fall of its Arab minions.

The dreaded secret police, or "Mukhabarat," is commanded by Gen. Omar Suleiman, who is widely viewed as America’s and Israel’s man in Cairo. Alongside him are Marshall Tantawi, chief of staff Lieutenant General Enan and Ahmed Shafik, also seen as America’s men on the Nile. The US usually had a backup for its favorite dictators; this writer noted last April that Gen. Omer Suleiman was Mubarak’s US-anointed successor. After Anwar Sadat’s assassination, Gen. Mubarak was quickly engineered into power.

The latter two generals attended the Pentagon’s updated version of the US military’s School of the America’s in Panama that recruited Latin American officers for the CIA. Senior ranks of Egypt’s 465,000-man armed forces and the secret police are believed to receive sizable secret stipends from CIA and the Pentagon.

Egypt’s senior generals are part of the ruling establishment. Many spend more time managing their business affairs than military matters. Such is also the case in many other Arab one-party states.

So far, the so-called Egyptian Revolution has only been a game of musical chairs. The United States still dominates Egypt’s military, policy, and economy. Washington provides wheat without which Egypt cannot feed itself.

Israel still exercises powerful influence over Egypt thanks to its supporters in the US Congress. An angry word from Jerusalem, and Egypt’s wheat could be cut off. Egyptian and Israeli intelligence are as entwined as was Israel’s Mossad with the Iranian Savak secret police.

One was that corrupt and repressive Arab regimes were the best possible guarantee that oil would continue to flow at prices acceptable to the West, and, that there would be almost no limits to the amount of weapons that could be sold to the most wealthy Arab states. (The design, production, testing and selling of weapons is one of the biggest creators of jobs and wealth in America, Britain and some other Western nations. Were it not for Saudi Arabia’s purchases, Britain’s arms manufacturing industry might have gone bust by now).

The other main policy-driving assessment was that only corrupt and repressive Arab regimes could be relied upon to provide the necessary security assistance for identifying, locating, hunting down and liquidating Islamic terrorists. This consideration became the priority after 9/11

With Mubarak gone – I imagine the generals finally said to him something like, “We’ve either got to shoot our people or insist that you go now” – the first question is this: Will the High Council of Egypt’s armed forces really be prepared to preside over the dismantling of a corrupt and cruel system and give democracy a green light?

Key question: Would a democratically elected civilian government have to be bound by the High Council’s commitment to the peace treaty with Israel?

Best politics would be for the government of Egypt to frame the referendum question to give it the authority to say to Israel something like: “We wish to remain committed to our peace treaty with you, but we will be unable to do so without a commitment from you to end your occupation of all Arab land taken in 1967.”

There is a lesson in here for all individuals and nations. All governments exist only with the consent of the governed. That consent does not have to be "withdrawn" via unlawful force at-arms or even via the ballot box.

Indeed, it is most-effectively withdrawn when the citizens refuse to go to work!

The Beast of Government exists on tax revenues. ALL governments share this fundamental reality. ALL governments fail when the economic capacity to tax is destroyed. ALL citizens give their consent to their government each and every day by performing economic acts and thereby exposing that activity to taxation.

That taxation forms the essence of the functional capacity to govern. Period.

The people in all nations, at all times, reserve the right and the ability, through peaceful and lawful action, to destroy any government should it fail to comply with their demands and act in a sufficiently-onerous manner, and a minority of the population is all it requires to effect this change. The Soviet Union fell via this mechanism, East Germany fell via this mechanism, and now Egypt has fallen via this mechanism.

The war between liberals and conservatives is a false divide-and-conquer dog-and-pony show created by the powers that be to keep the American people divided and distracted.

That immigration is the most intellectually stimulating of all political topics is demonstrated by Byron M. Roth’s ambitious new book, The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature. Roth, a professor of psychology emeritus at Dowling College in New York, has written a sober, yet sobering summa on immigration.

He writes in the acknowledgments:

“I have dedicated this book to my [seven] grandchildren in recognition that they must deal with the consequences of the decisions made by those who came before. I hope they will not judge us harshly.”

Roth inquires:

“Why have governments taken a position so contrary to the expressed wishes of the overwhelming majority of their citizens and engaged in clearly undemocratic attacks on their critics, all in defense of a policy that has so few benefits and so many tangible costs?”

He answers: “The traditional battle lines in western nations between left and right are not applicable to issues of multiculturalism and immigration”.

Those who proclaim their cosmopolitan benevolence loudest tend to be those who figure they are most likely to benefit from cheap labor or cheap votes.

Is Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman, the man suggested by U.S. government officials to be Egypt’s new leader, personally responsible for the brutal torture and disappearance of countless people using U.S.-approved “enhanced interrogation techniques”?

The evidence is overwhelming that he was trained and cultivated for just such a role. Suleiman is thought of fondly in U.S. intelligence circles. According to a recent piece in The New Yorker, he acts as the “CIA’s point man in Egypt for renditions—the covert program in which the CIA snatched terror suspects from around the world and ‘returned’ them to Egypt and elsewhere for interrogation, often under brutal circumstances.”

Ron Suskind wrote in The One Percent Doctrine that a rendition victim, whose torture testimony was used to make the fraudulent connection between al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 2003 conflict, would “be handed over to Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s intelligence chief and a friend of [CIA director George] Tenet.”

In their book Hubris, Michael Isikoff and David Corn recount how the tortured man, Ibn Sheikh al-Libi, eventually recanted his confession, saying he gave false information to Egyptian interrogators because “they were killing me . . . I had to tell them something.”

Where did Suleiman learn to be so effective at torture and (mis)information extraction? Could it have been, in part, from the United States?

The media blackout and obfuscation is deliberate and delivered to you by arrogant pundits who spin truth and construe any challenge to their synthetic reality as anti-American, treasonous, or hate speech

Has America turned into East Germany? All of these intrusive and abusive overreaches from the government appear to be derived directly from the Gestapo/Stasi playbook. How much further down the road to self-damnation do we have to travel before we awaken from the slumber we find ourselves in? These questions I pose to those who care to make a change -- not an empty "change you can believe in," but a genuine tangible change. Something is definitely not right when the FBI gets caught paying a convicted felon $177,000 tax-free for 15 months to infiltrate over 75 houses of worship, and his job was to lure innocent worshipers "trying to entrap them into a mission." Not to mention that the only reason the informant, Craig Monteilh, came out and exposed this is because he claims that after the FBI was finished using his services that they tried to whack him in prison where he was stabbed.

Napolitano had the right idea when she stated that homeland security begins with hometown security. It’s time we all took proactive steps in securing our hometowns from further government intrusion.

Will 2011 be the year that we point to as the beginning of the great global food crisis? Food prices are soaring, supplies are very tight and already we have seen some very intense food protests flare up around the globe this year. When people don't have enough to eat, they tend to become very desperate, and unfortunately it looks like the global food situation is not going to improve much any time soon. Right now the world is really struggling to feed itself, and with each passing day there are even more mouths to feed. It is being projected that the population of the world will reach 9 billion people by the year 2050. There are already way too many people starving to death around the globe, and unfortunately starvation is only going to become more rampant as food supplies get even tighter. Some of the key food producing provinces in China are facing their worst drought in 200 years. Flooding has absolutely devastated agricultural production in Australia and Brazil this winter. Russia is still trying to recover from the horrific drought of last summer. Global weather patterns have gone haywire over the past 12 months, and this is putting immense pressure on a global food system that was already on the verge of a major breakdown.

Food stockpiles all over the world are disturbingly low at this point. If a major global famine broke out not even the United States would be able to last for long. The U.S. government is supposed to be keeping a lot of food stockpiled in the event of an emergency, but that is just not happening.

Right now a desperate scramble for food is beginning. Quite a few nations that used to be huge food exporters are now importing a lot of their food. Prices for staples such as wheat, corn and soybeans are absolutely soaring, and the UN is projecting that they will continue to rise rapidly throughout 2011.

Unless something dramatically changes, the global food situation is only going to get tighter and tighter and tighter as this decade rolls along.

Defeat for the proposed extension of the so called PATRIOT Act in the House Tuesday night made national headlines, yet the extension is set to pass by the end of the week anyway as it is brought back to the floor for another vote. But just in case anyone in Congress reaches the sudden epiphany that they are effectively voting on the Enabling Act, Big Sis Janet Napolitano has officially notified a congressional panel that the US faces the greatest possibility of a major terror attack since 9/11.

House Republicans wanted to extend three of the PATRIOT Act’s most draconian provisions by a further year. For anyone who values the Constitution and freedom per se, that was bad enough, yet Obama went one better, stunning many in the House by suggesting that the legislation be extended for another THREE years.

A prepared statement issued Tuesday afternoon stated that Obama “would strongly prefer enactment of reauthorizing legislation that would extend these authorities until December 2013.”

Republicans attempted to fast track the extension using an expedited procedure that allowed for just a 40 minute debate and no amendments. However, this failed to pass as under such rules a 2/3rds super majority is required.

Even so, the extension fell short by just 7 votes, making it extremely likely that the bill will pass when it is brought back the floor either today or tomorrow. Under standard rules, only a simple majority will be needed for the extension to pass.

Media reports show there is a pervasive restlessness among the middle classes in the Middle East and elsewhere, a fact that began markedly to capture world media headlines when Egypt’s populace moved against their president, Hosni Mubarak. Barack Obama is praying for a peaceful outcome, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has condemned outright any violent uprisings, but what the Al Jazeera news service is transmitting live to the world, in particular battle scenes around Cairo’s Tahrir Square, is disquieting because here we have the development of a possible tragic Egyptian civil war.

Iranian media reports, of course, contain a deeper understanding of what impulses and values are driving this social upheaval because Iran’s own foreignignited “regime change” effort last year, fueled with U.S. dollars, failed to take off. That in itself is a powerful indicator of Iranian political sophistication, or a complete U.S. miscalculation as expressed in its allegation that the election, which handed President Dr.MahmoudAhmadinejad his second term, was rigged. Mubarak agreed not to run for office again in August, but this does not hide the deep contempt that Egypt’s political elites feel for their own people.

The fact that the president’s immediate family has taken flight to Great Britain fuels the Iranian political narrative— which clearly states that Zionist operations have now become fully transparent. In this respect it does not help that newly appointed Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq apologized for the violence in central Cairo. And this did not impress a large segment of the 18 million people who live in this ancient city. Similar problems in Yemen portray the Arabic uprising as a broader cry of “freedom, democracy and Islamic laws,” and that the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to fill any vacuum left by outgoing political regimes, certainly in Egypt and Yemen, but also in most Arabic-speaking Muslim countries.

The battle for supremacy among stock exchange operators heated up in a salvo of announcements: a merger between London and Toronto, and advanced talks by NYSE Euronext and Deutsche Boerse.

Within hours, the global landscape of exchanges shifted.

The London Stock Exchange and its new Canadian partner TMX Group, which operates the Toronto exchange, unveiled a deal to create one of the world's biggest trading platforms, which will dominate the raw materials and energy sectors.

Financial markets then heard from the transatlantic NYSE Euronext and Deutsche Boerse, which manages the Frankfurt exchange, that they were in "advanced discussions" on a merger.

Some analysts already have sounded alarms, such as Jon Ogg at 24/7 Wall St.com, who warned consolidation could result in "too few players that are too powerful."

There is a busy little private company you probably never have heard about, but which you should. Its name is the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. See their website. Looks pretty boring. Some kind of financial service thing, with a positive slogan and out there to make a little business. You can even get a job there. Now, go and take a look at their annual report. Starts with a nice little Flash presentation and has a nice message from the CEO. And take a look at the numbers. It turns out that this company holds 23 trillion dollars in assets, and had 917 trillion dollars worth of transactions in 2002 alone. That's trillions, as in thousands of thousands of millions. 23,000,000,000,000 dollars in assets.

As it so turns out, it is not because DTCC has a nice website and says good things about saving their customers money that they are trusted with that kind of resources. Rather it is because they seem to have a monopoly on what they do. In brief, they process the vast majority of all stock transactions in the United States as well as for many other countries. And - and that's the real interesting part - 99% of all stocks in the U.S. appear to be legally owned by them.

Sound impossible?

Here's an explanation from another researcher:

The reason the public doesn't know about DTC is that they're a privately owned depository bank for institutional and brokerage firms only. They process all of their book entry settlement transactions. Jim McNeff (Director of Training for the DTC at the time) said "There's no need for the public to know about us... it's required by the Federal Reserve that DTC handle all transactions".

The Federal Reserve Corporation, a/k/a The Federal Reserve System, is also a private company and is not an agency or department of our federal government. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is listed, but they are not the owners. The Federal Reserve Board, headed by Mr. Alan Greenspan [now Bernanke], is nothing more than a liaison advisory panel between the owners and the Federal Government. The FED, as they are more commonly called, mandates that the DTC process every securities transaction in the US.

Egyptian vice president Omar Suleiman, the former head of security services and chief torturer, was the official identified by Israel more than two years ago as its favored candidate to succeed President Hosni Mubarak, according to cables released by WikiLeaks this week.

The Israeli backing for Suleiman was made public by the Daily Telegraph, a right-wing British newspaper, which obtained US diplomatic cables that were later posted on the web site of the Internet whistleblower organization.

Suleiman has been heading the negotiations with opposition groups on behalf of the Mubarak regime, and has the backing of the Obama administration to lead a “transition” regime that would maintain the pro-US military dictatorship if Mubarak steps down or flees the country.

Cables from the American embassies in Tel Aviv and Cairo show Suleiman to be the point man for collaboration with Israel in repression of the Palestinians, particularly in Gaza, where Egypt controls part of the border. He was also the key ally for US officials in secret operations, including rendition and torture, conducted as part of the “war on terror.”

Reporting on a visit by Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak to Egypt, a senior Israeli adviser, David Hacham, told his interlocutor at the US embassy in Tel Aviv that Mubarak’s “aged appearance and slurred speech” had “shocked” Barak and others in the Israeli delegation.

Israeli leaders and outside observers realized from the very beginning that the only way to maintain such a violently imposed, ethnically based nation-state was through military dominance of the region. For Israel to achieve this military dominance required two things:

(1) The creation of a military more powerful than all the others in the region combined. Israel has achieved this through a uniquely massive influx of US tax dollars and technology, occasionally purloined but largely procured through the machinations of its lobby. (Among other things, Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons, a fact almost never mentioned by American media or the American government.)

(2) The prevention of any other nation in the region from becoming a threat. Israel has attained this goal through several strategies: divide and conquer techniques, direct invasions and attacks (or pushing the U.S. to carry out attacks), and the propping up of despots who would openly or tacitly agree (sometimes in return for similarly large influxes of American tax money) not to support the rights of those oppressed and ethnically cleansed by Israel.

For the past 30-plus years, Egypt has been among those despotic regimes supported by the U.S. and Israel in return for turning its back on Palestinians.

The Egypt-Israeli peace treaty of 1979 has occasionally been mentioned in news reports on the current uprising. That treaty was an arrangement in which the Egyptian leader of the time, Anwar Sadat, stopped opposing Israel’s previous ethnic cleansing of close to a million indigenous Palestinian Muslims and Christians (at least 750,000 in 1947-49 and an additional 200,000 in 1967). This removed the most populous and politically significant country from the Arab front opposing Israel’s illegal actions and led the way for other nations to “normalize” relations with the abnormal situation in Palestine.

The US House of Representatives rejected a nine-month extension of counter-terrorism surveillance powers at the heart of the Patriot Act adopted after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

With the three provisions set to expire February 28, lawmakers voted 277-148 in favor of legislation to renew them until December 8, falling short of the two-thirds majority needed under House rules.

The surprise vote came amid a bitter battle over how long to extend the intrusive powers at the core of the signature legislative response to the terrorist strikes nearly 10 years ago, and with what safeguards.

The provisions allow authorities to use roving wiretaps to track an individual on several telephones; track a non-US national suspected of being "lone-wolf" terrorist not tied to an extremist group; and to seize personal or business records seen as critical to an investigation.

The bigger fight had been expected in the Senate, where Republicans say they want the law extended permanently and Democrats are torn between two key White House allies who favor the December 2013 timeframe but differ deeply on safeguards.

The rule of the late two presidents over Egypt had its flashy moments of glory and people’s satisfaction like Nasser’s nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956 and the glorious war against Israel in 1973 during Sadat’s rule unlike the reign of Mubarak which lasted for thirty years now and which brought nothing except more corruption that seemed to propagate and spread into all aspects of the Egyptian socio-political life.

Mubarak’s regime is one of the final models of a lingering post- Cold war authoritarian rule. A rule that lost contact with the people and did nothing to improve their living conditions politically and economically. But are the Egyptians protesting only over political and economic grievances or there is more to it than just that?

The hope generation

During the last 2 decades a new generation has emerged, a generation of the information age, the internet age which gave the young people a never felt before sense of individualism and independence but which at the same time didn’t prevent them from belonging to a globalized world with universal and equal standards of shared human rights and values.

The new generation saw things differently than before, they couldn’t tolerate living in the information age while they were still getting caught and thrown into prison for expressing their opinions about the politics of their country. They couldn’t tolerate not to protest in a country where only the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, where politics is all about being a puppet government for foreign powers and playing friend with the enemy.

For the US there are no strategic relationships only permanent imperial interests, name preservation of the client state. The dictatorships assume that their relationships with Washington is strategic: hence the shock and dismay when they are sacrificed to save the state apparatus. Fearing revolution, Washington has had reluctant client despots, unwilling to move on, assassinated (Trujillo and Diem). Some are provided sanctuaries abroad (Somoza, Batista),others are pressured into power-sharing (Pinochet) or appointed as visiting scholars to Harvard, Georgetown or some other “prestigious” academic posting.

The Washington calculus on when to reshuffle the regime is based on an estimate of the capacity of the dictator to weather the political uprising, the strength and loyalty of the armed forces and the availability of a pliable replacement. The risk of waiting too long, of sticking with the dictator, is that the uprising radicalizes: the ensuing change sweeps away both the regime and the state apparatus, turning a political uprising into a social revolution. Just such a ‘miscalculation’ occurred in 1959 in the run-up to the Cuban revolution, when Washing stood by Batista and was not able to present a viable pro US alternative coalition linked to the old state apparatus. A similar miscalculation occurred in Nicaragua, when President Carter, while criticizing Somoza, stayed the course, and stood passively by as the regime was overthrown and the revolutionary forces destroyed the US and Israeli trained military, secret police and intelligence apparatus, and went on to nationalize US property and develop an independent foreign policy.

Obama has been extremely hesitant to oust Mubarak for several reasons, even as the movement grows in number and anti-Washington sentiment deepens. The White House has many clients around the world – including Honduras, Mexico, Indonesia, Jordan and Algeria – who believe they have a strategic relationship with Washington and would lose confidence in their future if Mubarak was dumped.

Secondly, the highly influential leading pro-Israel organizations in the US (AIPAC, the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations) and their army of scribes have mobilized congressional leaders to pressure the White House to continue backing Mubarak, as Israel is the prime beneficiary of a dictator who is at the throat of the Egyptians (and Palestinians) and at the feet of the Jewish state.

The events in Egypt of late have captured the attention of the world, as many thousands of Egyptians take to the streets both in opposition to and in favor of the current regime. We watch from a distance hoping that events do not spiral further into violence, which will destroy lives and threaten the livelihoods of average Egyptians caught up in the political turmoil.

I hope that Egyptians are able to work toward a more free and just society. Unfortunately, much of the blame for the unrest in Egypt and the resulting instability in the region rests with U.S. foreign policy over the past several decades. The U.S. government has sent more than $60 billion to the Egyptian regime since the Camp David Accords in 1978 to purchase stability, including more security for the state of Israel. We see now the folly of our interventionist foreign policy: not only has that stability fallen to pieces with the current unrest, but the years of propping up the corrupt regime in Egypt has led the people to increase their resentment of both America and Israel! We are both worse off for decades of intervention into Egypt’s internal affairs. I wish I could say that we have learned our lesson and will no longer attempt to purchase – or rent – friends in the Middle East, but I am afraid that is being too optimistic. Already we see evidence that while the U.S. historically propped up the Egyptian regime, we also provided assistance to groups opposed to the regime.

So we have lost the credibility to claim today that we support the self-determination of the Egyptian people. Our double dealing has not endeared us to Egyptians who now seek to reclaim their independence and national dignity.

“Diplomacy” via foreign aid transfer payments only makes us less safe at home and less trusted overseas. But the overriding reality is that we simply cannot afford to continue a policy of buying friends. We face an ongoing and potentially deepening recession at home, so how can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire? Moral arguments aside, we must stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments when our own economy is in shambles.

When protests started in Egypt, the heads of the Egyptian military all went to the U.S. and consulted with U.S. officials for orders. The Egyptians are well aware that the regime in Cairo is a pawn in the services of the U.S. and Israel. This is why Egyptian slogans are not only directed against the Mubarak regime but are also aimed against the U.S. and Israel, in similarity to some of the slogans of the Iranian Revolution. The U.S. has been involved in every aspect of the Egyptian government's activities. Cairo has not made a single move without consulting both the White House and Tel Aviv. Israel has also permitted the Egyptian military to move into urban areas in the Sinai Peninsula.

The reality of the situation is that the U.S. government has worked against freedom in the Arab World and beyond. When President Obama says that there should be a period of "transition" in Egypt, it means that Mubarak and the Egyptian regime should stay intact. The U.S. does not want a people's government in Cairo.

Martin Indyk, a former Clinton Administration official at the U.S. National Security Council with an area of responsible for the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and an individual closely tied to the Obama Administration, told the New York Times that the U.S. must work towards bringing the Egyptian military towards the control of Egypt until a "moderate and legitimate political leadership can emerge". [1] Not only did Indyk call for a military takeover in Egypt, he also used U.S. State Department double-speak. What U.S. officials mean by "moderate" are dictatorships and regimes like Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Jordan, Morocco, and Ben Ali's Tunisia. As for legitimacy, in the eyes of U.S. officials, it means individuals who will serve U.S. interests.

Tel Aviv is far less coy than the U.S. about the situation in Egypt. Out of fear of losing Cairo, Tel Aviv has been encouraging the Mubarak regime to unleash the full force of the Egyptian military on the civilian protesters. They have also been defending Mubarak internationally. In this regard, the Egyptian military's primary role has always been to police the Egyptian people and to keep the Mubarak regime in power. U.S. military aid to Egypt is solely intended for this purpose.

In 1989, the League was found guilty by a California court of illegally collaborating with police to amass detailed private information on 10,000 unsuspecting Americans. These included many conservative and pro-life activists as well as Muslims. (Watch NPN’s Hate Laws: Making Criminals of Christians)

In 2000, ADL was ordered to pay more than $10 million in damages for smearing a Colorado filmmaker, who worked with Hollywood, as anti-Semitic. The court agreed that, since the Hollywood film industry is Jewish, ADL had ruined his career. (jweekly.com “Judge fines ADL $10.5 million in Colorado defamation suit” 5/12/00)

In 2004, ADL National Executive Board member Philadelphia DA Lynne Abraham incarcerated 11 Christians for the “hate crime” of publically witnessing to homosexuals. They faced 47 years in prison and $90,000 fine each if found guilty. (See, Eleven Christians Jailed For Criticizing Homosexuality)

In 2010, ADL published a 30-page attack, Rage Grows on the Right. It described millions of anti-Obama Americans as “paranoid” and “conspirators.” (See, ADL Blasts 'Paranoid' Right: Are Millions of Anti-Obama Protestors 'Conspirators?') The National Prayer Network and Jonathan Tobin, editor of Commentary Magazine, led national outrage against ADL’s “incivility.” Even liberal Jewish media was too embarrassed to publish Foxman’s hysterical rant.

A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires (reluctant) opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. While not without some merit, the formulation is misleading. The general threat has always been independence. In the Arab world, the United States and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism.

Therefore to some observers the WikiLeaks “documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren’t asleep at the switch”—indeed, that the cables are so supportive of U.S. policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself (or so Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The National Interest.)

Unmentioned is what the population thinks—easily discovered. According to polls released by the Brookings Institution in August, some Arabs agree with Washington and Western commentators that Iran is a threat: 10 percent. In contrast, they regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats (77 percent; 88 percent).

Arab opinion is so hostile to Washington’s policies that a majority (57 percent) think regional security would be enhanced if Iran had nuclear weapons. Still, “there is nothing wrong, everything is under control” (as Marwan Muasher describes the prevailing fantasy). The dictators support us. Their subjects can be ignored—unless they break their chains, and then policy must be adjusted.

He didn't see himself as "the great communicator." It was so famous a moniker that he could do nothing but graciously accept the compliment, but he well understood it was bestowed in part by foes and in part to undercut the seriousness of his philosophy: "It's not what he says, it's how he says it." He answered in his farewell address: "I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: it was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things." It wasn't his eloquence people supported, it was his stands — opposition to the too-big state, to its intrusions and demands, to Soviet communism. Voters weren't charmed, they were convinced.

His most underestimated political achievement? In the spring of 1981 the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization called an illegal strike. It was early in Reagan's presidency. He'd been a union president. He didn't want to come across as an antiunion Republican. And Patco had been one of the few unions to support him in 1980. But the strike was illegal. He would not accept it. He gave them a grace period, two days, to come back. If they didn't, they'd be fired. They didn't believe him. Most didn't come back. So he fired them. It broke the union. Federal workers got the system back up. The Soviet Union, and others, were watching. They thought: This guy means business. It had deeply positive implications for U.S. foreign policy. But here's the thing: Reagan didn't know that would happen, didn't know the bounty he'd reap. He was just trying to do what was right.

The least understood facet of Reagan's nuclear policies? He hated the rise of nuclear weapons, abhorred the long-accepted policy of mutually assured destruction. That's where the Strategic Defense Initiative came from, his desire to protect millions from potential annihilation. The genius of his program: When developed, America would share it with the Soviet Union. We'd share it with everybody. All would be protected from doomsday.

The Soviets opposed this; the Rejkavik summit broke up over it, and in the end the Soviets' arms spending helped bankrupt them and hasten their fall. Years later I would see Mikhail Gorbachev, who became Reagan's friend. He was still grumpy about Reagan's speeches. "Ron — he loved show business!" Mr. Gorbachev blustered. The losses of those years must have still rankled, and understandably. It's one thing to be outmaneuvered by a clever man, but to be outfoxed by a good one — oh, that would grate.

Just a couple of days ago, a chorus of analysts - including this one - concluded that Hosni Mubarak was finished. The overall prediction still stands: his regime will never be the same again, and in all likelihood, it is just a matter of time before he goes. However, for now, the Egyptian president, aged 83, seems intent on holding onto power, despite all odds.

"After 62 years in public service, I have had enough. I want to go ... [But] if I resign today, there will be chaos," he said on Thursday evening in an interview with ABC. As for United States President Barack Obama's pressure on him, he claimed that he had told Obama personally: "You don't understand the Egyptian culture and what would happen if I stepped down now."

According to an analyst who prefers to stay anonymous, the wave of mass protests will impact Arab dictatorships much more powerfully than Arab monarchies. Arab monarchies such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia are more stable and resilient in the face of popular unrest, and are specifically less susceptible to subversion by Islamist forces.

This is because they are firmly rooted in a long religious, cultural and political tradition. It helps that most of their rulers claim some form of descent from the Prophet Mohammad - Jordan's current king, for example, claims to be the Prophet's 43rd direct descendent. In the Muslim world, such a genealogy matters.